Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMEO E. CABALITAN v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 165132 2012-03-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NELLIE R. APOLONIO BRION, J.
Contrast her situation, for example with the case of Cabalitan v. Department of Agrarian Reform,[63] where we held that "the offense committed by the employee in selling fake Unified Vehicular Volume Program exemption cards to his officemates during office hours was not grave misconduct, but conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service." Further contrast Dr. Apolonio's case with Mariano v. Roxas,[64] where "the Court held that the offense committed by a [CA] employee in forging some receipts to avoid her private contractual obligations, was not misconduct but conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service because her acts had no direct relation to or connection with the performance of her official duties."
	GR No. 191218 2011-05-30	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. ARWIN T. MAYORDOMO MENDOZA, J.
InCabalitan v. Department of Agrarian Reform,[42]the Court sustained the ruling of the CSC that the offense committed by the employee in selling fake Unified Vehicular Volume Program exemption cards to his officemates during office hours was not grave misconduct, but conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. InMariano v. Roxas,[43]the Court held that the offense committed by a CA employee in forging some receipts to avoid her private contractual obligations, was not misconduct but conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service because her acts had no direct relation to or connection with the performance of her official duties.
	GR No. 180941 2009-06-11	CHAIRMAN PERCIVAL C. CHAVEZ v. LOURDES R. RONIDEL NACHURA, J.
The question of respondent's qualifications is a factual issue which calls for the examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties. Certainly, it is beyond the power of this Court to review. This is especially true in the instant case, as the CSC-NCR, CSC and the CA have all found that, indeed, respondent possesses the required qualifications. As repeatedly held, we accord great respect to the findings of administrative agencies because they have acquired expertise in their jurisdiction; and we refrain from questioning their findings, particularly when these are affirmed by the appellate tribunal. We are not inclined to re-examine and re-evaluate the probative value of the evidence proffered in the concerned forum, which had formed the basis of the latter's impugned decision, resolution or order, absent a clear showing of arbitrariness and want of any rational basis therefor.[19]
	GR No. 177244 2007-11-20	TEODULO V. LARGO v. CA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In Cabalitan v. Department of Agrarian Reform,[24] the Court sustained the ruling of the CSC that the offense committed by the employee in selling fake Unified Vehicular Volume Program exemption cards to his officemates during office hours was not grave misconduct, but conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. In Mariano v. Roxas, [25] the Court held that the offense committed by a Court of Appeals employee in forging some receipts to avoid her private contractual obligations, was not misconduct but conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service because her acts had no direct relation to or connection with the performance of official duties. Then too, the Court considered the following conduct as prejudicial to the best interest of the service, to wit: a Judge's act of brandishing a gun and threatening the complainants during a traffic altercation;[26] and a court interpreter's participation in the execution of a document conveying complainant's property which resulted in a quarrel in the latter's family.[27]
	GR NO. 153188 2007-08-14	JERRYBELLE L. BUNSAY v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, to be entitled to initial compensation, said appointees must prove that they were issued appointments and have assumed the position to which they were appointed.[36] The best evidence of this would be the copies of their appointments duly issued in accordance with Section 4,[37] Rule IV of the CSC Omnibus Rules on Appointments and other Personnel Actions (Omnibus Rules on Appointment) and transmitted to the CSC for attestation[38] and the certificates of their assumption of office and their daily time records or service records.